Duelist - martial defender v.3 - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 twobeef May 18, 2010 22:37:18	I've had a theory for a Dex/Int crossover defender for a while, made a couple of other threads about it, got into some arguments, somehow got it into my head to think about it one more time. Theorycraft, and failed attempts to do this on previous threads First issue, using different weapons. The big argument that kinda erupted in the last thread was over what a duelist should be "allowed" to use. I had designed the duelist with the theory that it could only really use rapiers and scimitars as a balancing feature, and I got argument for not making it easier to allow dual-wield duelists or longsword duelists or even two-handed dire flail duelists or whatever. This is what I've thought about as a compromise: the AC bonus for the class is now a flat +2 anytime you aren't holding a shield, as opposed to the wonky +1 / +3 with empty hand thing that erupted into an argument about switching hands with versatile weapons. So that bonus holds even if you dual wield or a hold a two-hander. However, you don't start the game with any proficiencies for two-handed weapons - you would only start with one-handed military weapons. So the idea would be, fine, you can play a dire flail duelist - just as long as you take a feat for the weapon proficiency, and you would have to take a two-weapon fighting feat to make dual wielding worth anything. This gives me a separate problem. The best weapon for a starting duelist then would be a longsword - because you would start with the proficiency and two-hand it for a bonus point of damage as a versatile weapon. I considered just saying, okay, you don't start with any proficiencies in any versatile weapons, either, but then you have very few good starting choices, and you're forced into scimitar if you wanted to go with a heavy blade. It also means that every eladrin duelist, starting with the longsword for free, would be two-handing a longsword as their base weapon, which just seems odd from a flavor standpoint. My simple answer to that is to give the duelist a +1 bonus to damage with one-handed weapons, but only while wielding them in one hand. This means that you'd deal the same damage with a longsword in one hand as you would with it in two hands - for a more flavorful eladrin duelist - and you'd also wield a rapier that does just as much damage as a longsword. I think I can fit that into the balance. Second issue, chasing your marks. Every defender class gets a way to hit or follow a marked character that wanders away. A marking ability is no good if your opponent just shifts away from you. The obvious was response was, give the duelist a free shift when a marked target shifts away. I didn't like that much because it's fairly dull, not too sexy. On top of that, we now have a PHB3 defender that already does that. I also need something else for the class, a movement ability. Something that stands out for the class that has to do with mobility. I had originally considered that you would mark opponents by moving, which was a bit messy on its own. This lead me to a different conclusion - what if you didn't get a free shift when an enemy shifts away? What if you just get a free shift for... anything? Once a round, you make a free shift. Use it to follow a marked opponent, use it to set up flanks, use it for a spare point of movement. The idea is simple, but the game effects would be huge. I think I could go with this. edit I've been reading a couple of threads about the Battlemind lately, and a few people are saying that the shift-as-OA ability just isn't enough to keep the Battlemind on a marked target, that marked targets can just eat the OA, move away, and go hit a target outside of range. I think my response to that is that if I'm building a defender class based on mobility, that class should be sticky - it should be able to move just as much as a marked target does. I don't think it would be game-breaking to allow a full move in response to a moving marked target and a shift as a general ability. So here's my attempt to rationalize balance with the setup I've got below: My boilerplate human duelist has Str 12, Con 12, Dex 18, Int 16, Wis 8, Cha 10. He wears leather armor and gets a flat +2 bonus to AC with his longsword, and also gets to use Int for his Will defense. Just going by attributes and gear (not including class and racial bonuses to defenses), he has: +8 AC, +1 Fortitude, +4 Reflex, +3 Will, +1 HP and healing surge My boilerplate human fighter has Str 18, Con 16, Dex 12, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 10. He wears scale and a heavy shield with his longsword. He has (without class/racial bonuses): +9 AC, +4 Fortitude, +3 Reflex (with shield), +1 Will, +3 HP and healing surges. The duelist is behind by a point of AC, two healing surges, and two HP - though he has an extra three points of initiative. So he's behind by about "two feats' worth" of bonuses (like Durable and an armor proficiency). There's argument about how that would scale in whose favor, but I'm gonna leave it plain like that for now. I'm giving the duelist one extra skill point, so that narrows the gap to about "a feat's worth," and then they have the same base health pool. * The fighter gets proficiencies with all melee weapons. The duelist gets no proficiencies with two-handed weapons but gets proficiency with the rapier. Weapon proficiencies are about equal. * The fighter marks any target he attacks. The duelist marks one target that he uses his shift ability on. That's in the fighter's favor since he can use multi-target attacks to mark more than one enemy at once. So he's, what, maybe two feats' worth ahead at this point. * The fighter gets a scaling bonus to OAs. The duelist can opt to use his once-a-turn shift even when a marked target doesn't provoke it. That's a versatile bonus that's at least enough to close the two-feat gap. * The fighter gets to attack an adjacent enemy that makes an attack not including him. The duelist uses his debuff power the same way. * The fighter gets to attack an enemy that shifts away as an interrupt. The duelist can use an immediate action once per round to shift closer to the target. Almost equal, though the fighter gets the option to interrupt multiple marked enemies if it ever comes up while the duelist can only use the ability once per round. * The fighter gets a flat +1 bonus to attack with his favored weapons. The duelist has a +1 bonus to damage, and that's mainly a crutch. * When the fighter hits with an OA, he stops a moving target from moving. When the duelist is missed by an opponent, he gets a similar special ability that boosts his defense against OAs or restricts its own movement.
#2 urpriest May 19, 2010 9:53:06	If the +1 on the charge powers includes the charging bonus, you should say so. Personally, I think these powers should be allowable as non-charges (as a charge-only at-will is very situational), but they might only gain their extra effects when used to charge. Not to beat what apparently is a dead horse, but incentivizing one-handed weapons with an open hand seems fine to me...it's already done with brawlers and swordmages, and rogues generally lack viable two-handed options. I see no problem with the +1/+3 setup, and two-weapon duelists can easily take two-weapon defense and parrying daggers (which, incidentally, you might offer them base proficiency with, as it's another stereotypical duelist weapon) to mitigate the offset.
#3 Johnathan_Vagabond May 20, 2010 16:43:21	Ok, I'll go through bit by bit for you. Combat Expertise: I think you could find a better method of incentivizing 1 handed weapons than a +1 to damage. In a game where bonuses to Attack are at a premium, I'd recommend following the rogue's path. Give the class a +1 to hit with the weapon you want them to use. Now I don't have a problem with the concept of 'underhand-oversized-double-flail duelists' but it's your class. I'd suggest combat expertise be a +3 to AC with a light blade and empty hand, or a +1 to AC when not wearing a shield. Either or. The whole 1/3 thing isn't silly. I'd drop the +1 damage though. Duelists Repretoire: This marking mechanic is alright but, frankly, I expected the Duelist to have some kind of challenge. It really fits with the Duel concept you've got going with the Duel-ist. I'd suggest the something like this: Duelist Challenge: Once per round, when you hit a creature with a melee attack you may Mark them. If the marked creature makes an attack that doesn't include you as a target, they take a -2 to the attack and provoke a melee Opportunity Attack from you. Beat Strike: This power has relatively poor wording. For example, it targets an adjacent enemy, but uses a range of Melee Weapon (whips and polearms have reach). Forcing them to roll twice is a good mechanic, especially making them use the lower of the two rolls. I wouldn't allow a penalty to the attack without a feat though. But it would make a good feat! Furthermore, I wouldn't make this dependent on actually hitting. I would reword it thusly: Beat Strke, Duelist Class Feature At-Will * Martial, Weapon Opporunity Action - Melee 1 Trigger: A creature makes an attack that does not include you as a target. Target: The triggering creature. Effect: The target rolls twice for the attack, using the lower of the two rolls. Lunging Step: The trigger is ridiculous. "Any action by an enemy or an ally"? That means the duelist could literally use this at any time during anyone's turn. That may be what you intended, but it probably shouldn't be. Furthermore, an Encounter Power that you regain at the beginning of your turn is an At-Will power. What you want to say is "Once per turn, either when an adjacent enemy shifts away or during an allies turn, you may shift 1 square". Now, it's also relatively silly, a Shift 1 Whenever You Like. I think a more flavorful power would be something like this: Lunging Strike, Duelist Class Feature At-Will * Martial, Weapon No Action - Close Burst 2 Target: One creature marked by you within Burst. Trigger: The target creature performs an action that would provoke an Opportunity Attack from you. Effect: You may shift 1 square to a square adjacent to the creature and make an Opportunity Attack. Now, an explanation of why I would set it up this way (you don't need to). Your mark permist you to make opportunity attacks against creature that target your allies. Lunging Strike lets you shift 1 square before making Opportunity Attacks (against creatures no more than 1 square away). Beat Strike lets you force creatures to roll twice as an Opportunity Attack. It makes for a potent chain and prevents Shift+Attacking. There's always the danger of Shift+Charging, but defenders mustn't be perfect. Retort Focus (Derobement): This is very confusingly worded. Essentially, if a creature attacks you and misses every target of their attack, they can't shift in a close burst 1? That's not a very strong power. Positioning is important, but that doesn't really strike a nerve. I think it would be a much better and stronger power if it read: "If an adjacent creature misses you with an attack, they cannot shift away from you until the end of their next turn." Therefore, they could move away from you (provoking an OA) or remain next to you (Defender doing their job). Retort Focus (Disengagement): This is similar, except you don't provoke OA's for moving away from them. I suppose its reasonable that you'd want to move away from them to lockdown a different target. I'd still change it from "Misses all targets" to "Misses you". Duelists aren't known for being hugely reliant on a team, so missing an ally shouldn't make a difference on whether or not you make a retort. Sharp Mind: I don't think this is a good idea. Basing AC of something other than Int/Dex while wearing Light Armor is one thing. AC is already based off another NAD defense. Basing another NAD off of a NAD defense isn't the same thing. Wis/Cha is important to all classes, even those without either stat as a primary or secondary stat. Allowing the Duelist to base Will off of Intelligence makes both largely useless to the duelist: true dump stats. One major part of 4e is not having any true dump stats. Drop this ability and give duelists a +1 to Will instead of fortitude. It makes more sense anyways, Duelists were never very hardy. Gambol Strike: Too much for a defender. A close burst 1, 1W damage attack the area of Controllers and Strikers. Also, marking all adjacent enemies each round is the Warden's Schtick. I'd get rid of this in favor of something else. Parrying Sweep: Interesting, although I think it'd be better to apply a simple damage penalty to your target's next attack. It raises the question 'why can't he parry all the time?' 'Why does he have to hit someone to parry someone else?" I'd change the hit line to "1W+Dex mod damage. The target takes Int mod penalty to damage on their next attack." Tumbling Charge: I suggest losing the charge requirement in favor of allowing this power as part of a charge. Also, +1 to attack doesn't really scream grace when you already get a +2 to attack from charging. Perhaps the hit line becomes "1W+Dex mod damage and you gain a Cha mod bonus to defense against Opportunity Attacks until the beginning of your next turn. Special: You may use this attack at the end of a charge. If you do, you gain a Cha mod bonus to defense against Opportunity Attacks you provoke during the charge." Vexing Feint: This is kind of a controllery power, but it suits the defender well enough. You might get away with "You may slide the target to any square adjacent to you, and switch places with the target." I think that's a bit more defendery and a little stronger. Defensive Opening: Again, I'd make this useable on a charge, but not requiring a charge. Other than that, a good encounter power. Demanding Swat: Too strong for an encounter, especially on a defender. A total possible 4W+2Dex mod damage and push Cha+1? Consider the off-beat duelist using a Maul: 8d6+dex+dex!. Not ok (probably not ok as a level 1 daily, maybe level 5). Try 2 attacks at 1W damage each (no mod) and Slide 1 Shift 1. If you hit with both attacks, it becomes Slide 2 Shift Adjacent. Must go, will return.
#4 twobeef May 20, 2010 20:49:40	If the +1 on the charge powers includes the charging bonus, you should say so. I forgot exactly how the bonus to-hit is worded in the definition to charging. You're right, the power shouldn't need the +1 as a bonus directly since the charge ability already implies it. I'll change that when I go back through this. Not to beat what apparently is a dead horse, but incentivizing one-handed weapons with an open hand seems fine to me...it's already done with brawlers and swordmages, and rogues generally lack viable two-handed options. I see no problem with the +1/+3 setup, and two-weapon duelists can easily take two-weapon defense and parrying daggers (which, incidentally, you might offer them base proficiency with, as it's another stereotypical duelist weapon) to mitigate the offset. I've thought about it a lot, and I prefer the flat +2. For one thing, it's a bit less messy and easier to keep track of. For another, using a flat bonus makes it easier to go with two-weapon fighting - which is a common duelist trope - without having to sacrifice your defender AC for it. Sure, you can "easily" take two-weapon defense and parrying dagger, but that makes it feel like a double feat tax if you want to go with two weapons for flavor purposes. I think you could find a better method of incentivizing 1 handed weapons than a +1 to damage. In a game where bonuses to Attack are at a premium, I'd recommend following the rogue's path. That's why I didn't go with a +1 to-hit instead of a +1 to-damage, because it's stronger. The bonus to damage is not a class feature per say - it's really more of a crutch, to make one-handed / open-off-hand fighting equally attractive to two-handed fighting. The real strengths of the class are the mobility features, so I think it would be a bit strong to go with a to-hit bonus. This marking mechanic is alright but, frankly, I expected the Duelist to have some kind of challenge. It really fits with the Duel concept you've got going with the Duel-ist. The main concept that I finally came around to was not so much exactly for "dueling." It's really for a defender whose strengths are in mobility and control. I think the challenge aspects are really more aspects of the Fighter class. Furthermore, I wouldn't make this dependent on actually hitting. I would reword it thusly: ... Effect: The target rolls twice for the attack, using the lower of the two rolls. I can understand going this route and might still do it if popular opinion prefers, but my thinking to that would be that it's a bit more boring that way. I would rather have an active ability where the GM says, "Okay, that marked guy attacks, so you get to make a roll to stop him," which involves the player a little more, rather than an ability where the GM just says, "Okay, he makes an attacks, but he rolls twice since you're next to him," and the player doesn't get as much of a direct motion in the process. The trigger is ridiculous. "Any action by an enemy or an ally"? That means the duelist could literally use this at any time during anyone's turn. That may be what you intended, but it probably shouldn't be. It is what I intended. My insights into why I went that route are in that first block of text I closed off in my first post. It's also why some of the other aspects of the class are a bit weaker, because a shift anytime is a pretty strong idea. Wis/Cha is important to all classes, even those without either stat as a primary or secondary stat. Allowing the Duelist to base Will off of Intelligence makes both largely useless to the duelist: true dump stats. Sharp mind is really just a crutch to make a Dex/Int duelist about equal to a Dex/Cha duelist. I talked about this with people a bunch in my last thread, and I don't have a better idea for not putting a Dex/Int combo at a disadvantage. Too much for a defender. A close burst 1, 1W damage attack the area of Controllers and Strikers. Also, marking all adjacent enemies each round is the Warden's Schtick. Well, yes, it's an attack for the area of controllers, but the class leans pretty heavily toward controller as a secondary aspect. I think the idea of light attacks over several enemies fits the theme well - you ever see a movie with Zorro facing three guys at once and pushing them all back because they can't get a hit in on him? The defender swordmage gets a close burst 1 that deals 1d6 + Int damage. A 1W close burst 1 is almost certainly going to be less damage than that (about 6.5-7.5 damage for the sword burst without feats, but 4.5 damage for a gambol strike with a longsword). I think marking the targets is a nice addition to that to balance the lower damage - it doesn't necessarily penalize the targets directly if they're all still attacking you, so it's not a huge advantage, and it does fit into that Zorro image of bothering several people at once. Interesting, although I think it'd be better to apply a simple damage penalty to your target's next attack. It raises the question 'why can't he parry all the time?' 'Why does he have to hit someone to parry someone else?" Okay, here's my overly complex justification of the balance here. Barbarians get an at-will ability that gives them Con THP on hit, right? Which ability is stronger, my parry or the barb THP ability? * The barb gets THP that basically lower the damage of any next attack in the encounter. The parry only lasts against a hit before the end of the next turn. Barb++ * The barb can use his THP to lessen the damage of any attack. The duelist can only use the damage against weapon attacks, not against magic. Barb++ * The barb gets the THP if his attack hits. The duelist gets the parry even if his attack doesn't hit. Duelist++ * The barb's THP can only benefit himself. The parry can aide a weapon attack that strikes an ally instead if that occurs. Duelist++ So I say it's about even altogether. I suggest losing the charge requirement in favor of allowing this power as part of a charge. Also, +1 to attack doesn't really scream grace when you already get a +2 to attack from charging. The +1 bit is essentially a typo because I didn't read the actual wording of "charge" correctly. That will be taken out. If I had an at-will power that said, "Move your speed, then make an attack," that would be a pretty strong power. After all, the rogue gets an at-will power that only allows you to move two extra squares. Saying that you get a bonus to OAs during that move would be even stronger. I think that restricting the power to charge attacks is fairly balanced. It essentially says that your character gets a bonus to OAs while charging and can use Dex instead of Str for the attack. Too strong for an encounter, especially on a defender. A total possible 4W+2Dex mod damage and push Cha+1? Consider the off-beat duelist using a Maul: 8d6+dex+dex!. I think you misread the power. The max damage is 2W+Dex if you hit with both attacks, not 1W+Dex + 2W+Dex.
#5 Johnathan_Vagabond May 21, 2010 9:09:46	I think then it might be best to give the class a slight rename. Swashbuckler comes to mind (swordsman, buccanear, daredevil). Because it's kind of a duelist that doesn't duel, which runs along the same vein as an brewer that doesn't brew or a charger that doesn't charge. It throws me (and likely others) off their game. Although rolling to perform your defensive maneuver is exciting, the Duelist's maneuver is currently more limiting than any other defenders' maneuver. The fighter has CC and CS, although they both require rolls, they will both happen all the time. The paladin has DS, which doesn't require any rolls. The warden has an actual damage dealing attack, and a power that reaches enemies up to 5 squares away. The battlemind's Mindspike deals damage without a roll (although I don't quite like the battlemind). Either way, the Duelist gets a power that means he must be adjacent to the enemy and roll to have a chance to affect them. Unlike the other defenders you must 1) Be adjacent when the attack happens. 2) Not have used Lunge Step this round because 3) it uses the immediate action, of which you only get one per round and 4) Must roll to have a chance to succeed. Lunge Step and Beat Strike are very weak defender mechanics right now. If you want the 'free whenever shift', you need to make it a Free Action (Special): Once per round you may shift 1 square during another creatures turn. Keep in mind this does give you a virtual 'shift 1 square before and after the attack' power because you can Shift, Attack (end turn), Shift. I recommend that, if you want to keep the roll for Beat Strike, you allow it to do some damage (and still drop the autmatic penalty). Then I'd suggest the following feat: 1) Improved Beat Strike: When you use Beat Strike, you may apply your Int or Cha mod as a penalty to the second attack. The reasoning for this is that they're already taking a -2 to both rolls and must take the lower roll. Forcing them to take the full -2&-Stat mod would nearly guarentee that they never hit (which isn't very interesting either). With Sharp Mind, I still think you need to find a different way to incentivize Dex/Int Duelists. Consider allowing them to use Int instead of Str when qualifying for feats or making mbas (or both). You probably ought to still break Gambol Strike down to something like 2 or 3 creatures within a Close Burst 1. Realistically you won't be getting many 8 hit close burst 1s, but I still think it ought to be reduced. The explanation for Sweeping Parry is interesting, but: Why does hitting target A allow you to parry target B? Also, in a D&D world, it makes just as much sense for the duelist to parry a weapon as it does for them to mess up someone's somatic spell component. Imagine the drama of the duelist slapping a wand with his sword, causing it to strike his allies shoulder instead of their heart. For understandabilities sake, it ought to apply a penalty to damage for the target's next attack (as an effect line if you please). I don't think I suggested you make a power that said "move your speed and make an attack". I suggested that it grant you a bonus against OAs until the beginning of your next turn and if you happen to charge, you gain the bonus to OAs for the charge as wel. I misread demanding swat because I don't think its very clearly worded. To clarify, I'd suggest the following: Attack: Dex v AC Hit: 1W+Dex mod damage and push Cha mod squares. Effect: Make a secondary Dex v. AC attack against the target, before the push. -Hit: 1W damage and the push becomes a Slide. That very clearly says you get 2 rolls (because effects happen hit or miss), the max damage is 2W+Dex, and you end up with a big push. I switched it from Cha and Cha+1 to Cha Push and Cha Slide. Two reasons I suggest changing it. 1) Cha to Cha+1 isn't all that hot and 2) The Paladin's L1 Encounter "Divine Pursuit" does the same then (2W+Str mod damage, push Wis, shift adjacent) using only 1 attack roll and shifting to pursue. To make Demanding Swat comparable, I think letting the second attack turn your push into a slide is quite reasonable.
#6 twobeef May 29, 2010 23:56:05	Got around to adding ideas for paragon encounters/dailies. Although rolling to perform your defensive maneuver is exciting, the Duelist's maneuver is currently more limiting than any other defenders' maneuver... The paladin has DS, which doesn't require any rolls. Ehn, that's fair. I admit that I hadn't thought about the paladin mark ability in relationship to that. I'm gonna go ahead with an automatic reverse. Lunge Step and Beat Strike are very weak defender mechanics right now. I've trolling the forums a bit more lately and noticed a thread on the Battlemind where people were saying that being able to just shift when a mark shifts away isn't very strong because a target can just eat the OA and move out of range far enough to attack someone. The cries against it seem to warrant a bit more attention. I'm been thinking in response to that that a defender built on mobility should be sticky, should be able to move just as much as the target does. I'm gonna try a bit different flavor on Lunge Step. Read what it says above now. The explanation for Sweeping Parry is interesting, but: Why does hitting target A allow you to parry target B? It doesn't. You don't have to hit the target to take advantage of the parry effect. I don't think I suggested you make a power that said "move your speed and make an attack". I suggested that it grant you a bonus against OAs until the beginning of your next turn and if you happen to charge, you gain the bonus to OAs for the charge as wel. I think that is getting confusing and a bit too strong. I misread demanding swat because I don't think its very clearly worded. To clarify, I'd suggest the following: I took the wording from a similar ability - I think it was a rogue ability in Martial Power somewhere, but it slips my mind. I can clean up the wording a bit if it's that bad.

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

twobeef

May 18, 2010 22:37:18

I've had a theory for a Dex/Int crossover defender for a while, made a couple of other threads about it, got into some arguments, somehow got it into my head to think about it one more time.

Theorycraft, and failed attempts to do this on previous threads

First issue, using different weapons. The big argument that kinda erupted in the last thread was over what a duelist should be "allowed" to use. I had designed the duelist with the theory that it could only really use rapiers and scimitars as a balancing feature, and I got argument for not making it easier to allow dual-wield duelists or longsword duelists or even two-handed dire flail duelists or whatever.

This is what I've thought about as a compromise: the AC bonus for the class is now a flat +2 anytime you aren't holding a shield, as opposed to the wonky +1 / +3 with empty hand thing that erupted into an argument about switching hands with versatile weapons. So that bonus holds even if you dual wield or a hold a two-hander. However, you don't start the game with any proficiencies for two-handed weapons - you would only start with one-handed military weapons. So the idea would be, fine, you can play a dire flail duelist - just as long as you take a feat for the weapon proficiency, and you would have to take a two-weapon fighting feat to make dual wielding worth anything.

This gives me a separate problem. The best weapon for a starting duelist then would be a longsword - because you would start with the proficiency and two-hand it for a bonus point of damage as a versatile weapon. I considered just saying, okay, you don't start with any proficiencies in any versatile weapons, either, but then you have very few good starting choices, and you're forced into scimitar if you wanted to go with a heavy blade. It also means that every eladrin duelist, starting with the longsword for free, would be two-handing a longsword as their base weapon, which just seems odd from a flavor standpoint.

My simple answer to that is to give the duelist a +1 bonus to damage with one-handed weapons, but only while wielding them in one hand. This means that you'd deal the same damage with a longsword in one hand as you would with it in two hands - for a more flavorful eladrin duelist - and you'd also wield a rapier that does just as much damage as a longsword. I think I can fit that into the balance.

Second issue, chasing your marks. Every defender class gets a way to hit or follow a marked character that wanders away. A marking ability is no good if your opponent just shifts away from you. The obvious was response was, give the duelist a free shift when a marked target shifts away. I didn't like that much because it's fairly dull, not too sexy. On top of that, we now have a PHB3 defender that already does that.

I also need something else for the class, a movement ability. Something that stands out for the class that has to do with mobility. I had originally considered that you would mark opponents by moving, which was a bit messy on its own.

This lead me to a different conclusion - what if you didn't get a free shift when an enemy shifts away? What if you just get a free shift for... anything? Once a round, you make a free shift. Use it to follow a marked opponent, use it to set up flanks, use it for a spare point of movement. The idea is simple, but the game effects would be huge. I think I could go with this.

*edit* I've been reading a couple of threads about the Battlemind lately, and a few people are saying that the shift-as-OA ability just isn't enough to keep the Battlemind on a marked target, that marked targets can just eat the OA, move away, and go hit a target outside of range.

I think my response to that is that if I'm building a defender class based on mobility, that class should be sticky - it should be able to move just as much as a marked target does. I don't think it would be game-breaking to allow a full move in response to a moving marked target and a shift as a general ability.

So here's my attempt to rationalize balance with the setup I've got below:

My boilerplate human duelist has Str 12, Con 12, Dex 18, Int 16, Wis 8, Cha 10. He wears leather armor and gets a flat +2 bonus to AC with his longsword, and also gets to use Int for his Will defense. Just going by attributes and gear (not including class and racial bonuses to defenses), he has:

+8 AC, +1 Fortitude, +4 Reflex, +3 Will, +1 HP and healing surge

My boilerplate human fighter has Str 18, Con 16, Dex 12, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 10. He wears scale and a heavy shield with his longsword. He has (without class/racial bonuses):

+9 AC, +4 Fortitude, +3 Reflex (with shield), +1 Will, +3 HP and healing surges.

The duelist is behind by a point of AC, two healing surges, and two HP - though he has an extra three points of initiative. So he's behind by about "two feats' worth" of bonuses (like Durable and an armor proficiency). There's argument about how that would scale in whose favor, but I'm gonna leave it plain like that for now. I'm giving the duelist one extra skill point, so that narrows the gap to about "a feat's worth," and then they have the same base health pool.

* The fighter gets proficiencies with all melee weapons. The duelist gets no proficiencies with two-handed weapons but gets proficiency with the rapier. Weapon proficiencies are about equal.
* The fighter marks any target he attacks. The duelist marks one target that he uses his shift ability on. That's in the fighter's favor since he can use multi-target attacks to mark more than one enemy at once. So he's, what, maybe two feats' worth ahead at this point.
* The fighter gets a scaling bonus to OAs. The duelist can opt to use his once-a-turn shift even when a marked target doesn't provoke it. That's a versatile bonus that's at least enough to close the two-feat gap.
* The fighter gets to attack an adjacent enemy that makes an attack not including him. The duelist uses his debuff power the same way.
* The fighter gets to attack an enemy that shifts away as an interrupt. The duelist can use an immediate action once per round to shift closer to the target. Almost equal, though the fighter gets the option to interrupt multiple marked enemies if it ever comes up while the duelist can only use the ability once per round.
* The fighter gets a flat +1 bonus to attack with his favored weapons. The duelist has a +1 bonus to damage, and that's mainly a crutch.
* When the fighter hits with an OA, he stops a moving target from moving. When the duelist is missed by an opponent, he gets a similar special ability that boosts his defense against OAs or restricts its own movement.

urpriest

May 19, 2010 9:53:06

If the +1 on the charge powers includes the charging bonus, you should say so. Personally, I think these powers should be allowable as non-charges (as a charge-only at-will is very situational), but they might only gain their extra effects when used to charge.

Not to beat what apparently is a dead horse, but incentivizing one-handed weapons with an open hand seems fine to me...it's already done with brawlers and swordmages, and rogues generally lack viable two-handed options. I see no problem with the +1/+3 setup, and two-weapon duelists can easily take two-weapon defense and parrying daggers (which, incidentally, you might offer them base proficiency with, as it's another stereotypical duelist weapon) to mitigate the offset.

Johnathan_Vagabond

May 20, 2010 16:43:21

Ok, I'll go through bit by bit for you.

Combat Expertise: I think you could find a better method of incentivizing 1 handed weapons than a +1 to damage. In a game where bonuses to Attack are at a premium, I'd recommend following the rogue's path. Give the class a +1 to hit with the weapon you want them to use. Now I don't have a problem with the concept of 'underhand-oversized-double-flail duelists' but it's your class. I'd suggest combat expertise be a +3 to AC with a light blade and empty hand, or a +1 to AC when not wearing a shield. Either or. The whole 1/3 thing isn't silly. I'd drop the +1 damage though.

Duelists Repretoire: This marking mechanic is alright but, frankly, I expected the Duelist to have some kind of challenge. It really fits with the Duel concept you've got going with the Duel-ist. I'd suggest the something like this:
Duelist Challenge: Once per round, when you hit a creature with a melee attack you may Mark them. If the marked creature makes an attack that doesn't include you as a target, they take a -2 to the attack and provoke a melee Opportunity Attack from you.

Beat Strike: This power has relatively poor wording. For example, it targets an adjacent enemy, but uses a range of Melee Weapon (whips and polearms have reach). Forcing them to roll twice is a good mechanic, especially making them use the lower of the two rolls. I wouldn't allow a penalty to the attack without a feat though. But it would make a good feat! Furthermore, I wouldn't make this dependent on actually hitting. I would reword it thusly:
Beat Strke, Duelist Class Feature
At-Will * Martial, Weapon
Opporunity Action - Melee 1
Trigger: A creature makes an attack that does not include you as a target.
Target: The triggering creature.
Effect: The target rolls twice for the attack, using the lower of the two rolls.

Lunging Step: The trigger is ridiculous. "Any action by an enemy or an ally"? That means the duelist could literally use this at any time during anyone's turn. That may be what you intended, but it probably shouldn't be. Furthermore, an Encounter Power that you regain at the beginning of your turn is an At-Will power. What you want to say is "Once per turn, either when an adjacent enemy shifts away or during an allies turn, you may shift 1 square". Now, it's also relatively silly, a Shift 1 Whenever You Like. I think a more flavorful power would be something like this:
Lunging Strike, Duelist Class Feature
At-Will * Martial, Weapon
No Action - Close Burst 2
Target: One creature marked by you within Burst.
Trigger: The target creature performs an action that would provoke an Opportunity Attack from you.
Effect: You may shift 1 square to a square adjacent to the creature and make an Opportunity Attack.

Now, an explanation of why I would set it up this way (you don't need to). Your mark permist you to make opportunity attacks against creature that target your allies. Lunging Strike lets you shift 1 square before making Opportunity Attacks (against creatures no more than 1 square away). Beat Strike lets you force creatures to roll twice as an Opportunity Attack. It makes for a potent chain and prevents Shift+Attacking.

There's always the danger of Shift+Charging, but defenders mustn't be perfect.

Retort Focus (Derobement): This is very confusingly worded. Essentially, if a creature attacks you and misses every target of their attack, they can't shift in a close burst 1? That's not a very strong power. Positioning is important, but that doesn't really strike a nerve. I think it would be a much better and stronger power if it read: "If an adjacent creature misses you with an attack, they cannot shift away from you until the end of their next turn." Therefore, they could move away from you (provoking an OA) or remain next to you (Defender doing their job).

Retort Focus (Disengagement): This is similar, except you don't provoke OA's for moving away from them. I suppose its reasonable that you'd want to move away from them to lockdown a different target. I'd still change it from "Misses all targets" to "Misses you". Duelists aren't known for being hugely reliant on a team, so missing an ally shouldn't make a difference on whether or not you make a retort.

Sharp Mind: I don't think this is a good idea. Basing AC of something other than Int/Dex while wearing Light Armor is one thing. AC is already based off another NAD defense. Basing another NAD off of a NAD defense isn't the same thing. Wis/Cha is important to all classes, even those without either stat as a primary or secondary stat. Allowing the Duelist to base Will off of Intelligence makes both largely useless to the duelist: true dump stats. One major part of 4e is not having any true dump stats. Drop this ability and give duelists a +1 to Will instead of fortitude. It makes more sense anyways, Duelists were never very hardy.

Gambol Strike: Too much for a defender. A close burst 1, 1W damage attack the area of Controllers and Strikers. Also, marking all adjacent enemies each round is the Warden's Schtick. I'd get rid of this in favor of something else.

Parrying Sweep: Interesting, although I think it'd be better to apply a simple damage penalty to your target's next attack. It raises the question 'why can't he parry all the time?' 'Why does he have to hit someone to parry someone else?" I'd change the hit line to "1W+Dex mod damage. The target takes Int mod penalty to damage on their next attack."

Tumbling Charge: I suggest losing the charge requirement in favor of allowing this power as part of a charge. Also, +1 to attack doesn't really scream grace when you already get a +2 to attack from charging. Perhaps the hit line becomes "1W+Dex mod damage and you gain a Cha mod bonus to defense against Opportunity Attacks until the beginning of your next turn. Special: You may use this attack at the end of a charge. If you do, you gain a Cha mod bonus to defense against Opportunity Attacks you provoke during the charge."

Vexing Feint: This is kind of a controllery power, but it suits the defender well enough. You might get away with "You may slide the target to any square adjacent to you, and switch places with the target." I think that's a bit more defendery and a little stronger.

Defensive Opening: Again, I'd make this useable on a charge, but not requiring a charge. Other than that, a good encounter power.

Demanding Swat: Too strong for an encounter, especially on a defender. A total possible 4W+2Dex mod damage and push Cha+1? Consider the off-beat duelist using a Maul: 8d6+dex+dex!. Not ok (probably not ok as a level 1 daily, maybe level 5). Try 2 attacks at 1W damage each (no mod) and Slide 1 Shift 1. If you hit with both attacks, it becomes Slide 2 Shift Adjacent.

Must go, will return.

twobeef

May 20, 2010 20:49:40

If the +1 on the charge powers includes the charging bonus, you should say so.

I forgot exactly how the bonus to-hit is worded in the definition to charging. You're right, the power shouldn't need the +1 as a bonus directly since the charge ability already implies it. I'll change that when I go back through this.

Not to beat what apparently is a dead horse, but incentivizing one-handed weapons with an open hand seems fine to me...it's already done with brawlers and swordmages, and rogues generally lack viable two-handed options. I see no problem with the +1/+3 setup, and two-weapon duelists can easily take two-weapon defense and parrying daggers (which, incidentally, you might offer them base proficiency with, as it's another stereotypical duelist weapon) to mitigate the offset.

I've thought about it a lot, and I prefer the flat +2. For one thing, it's a bit less messy and easier to keep track of. For another, using a flat bonus makes it easier to go with two-weapon fighting - which is a common duelist trope - without having to sacrifice your defender AC for it. Sure, you can "easily" take two-weapon defense and parrying dagger, but that makes it feel like a double feat tax if you want to go with two weapons for flavor purposes.

I think you could find a better method of incentivizing 1 handed weapons than a +1 to damage. In a game where bonuses to Attack are at a premium, I'd recommend following the rogue's path.

That's why I didn't go with a +1 to-hit instead of a +1 to-damage, because it's stronger. The bonus to damage is not a class feature per say - it's really more of a crutch, to make one-handed / open-off-hand fighting equally attractive to two-handed fighting. The real strengths of the class are the mobility features, so I think it would be a bit strong to go with a to-hit bonus.

This marking mechanic is alright but, frankly, I expected the Duelist to have some kind of challenge. It really fits with the Duel concept you've got going with the Duel-ist.

The main concept that I finally came around to was not so much exactly for "dueling." It's really for a defender whose strengths are in mobility and control. I think the challenge aspects are really more aspects of the Fighter class.

Furthermore, I wouldn't make this dependent on actually hitting. I would reword it thusly:
... Effect: The target rolls twice for the attack, using the lower of the two rolls.

I can understand going this route and might still do it if popular opinion prefers, but my thinking to that would be that it's a bit more boring that way. I would rather have an active ability where the GM says, "Okay, that marked guy attacks, so you get to make a roll to stop him," which involves the player a little more, rather than an ability where the GM just says, "Okay, he makes an attacks, but he rolls twice since you're next to him," and the player doesn't get as much of a direct motion in the process.

The trigger is ridiculous. "Any action by an enemy or an ally"? That means the duelist could literally use this at any time during anyone's turn. That may be what you intended, but it probably shouldn't be.

It is what I intended. My insights into why I went that route are in that first block of text I closed off in my first post. It's also why some of the other aspects of the class are a bit weaker, because a shift anytime is a pretty strong idea.

Wis/Cha is important to all classes, even those without either stat as a primary or secondary stat. Allowing the Duelist to base Will off of Intelligence makes both largely useless to the duelist: true dump stats.

Sharp mind is really just a crutch to make a Dex/Int duelist about equal to a Dex/Cha duelist. I talked about this with people a bunch in my last thread, and I don't have a better idea for not putting a Dex/Int combo at a disadvantage.

Too much for a defender. A close burst 1, 1W damage attack the area of Controllers and Strikers. Also, marking all adjacent enemies each round is the Warden's Schtick.

Well, yes, it's an attack for the area of controllers, but the class leans pretty heavily toward controller as a secondary aspect. I think the idea of light attacks over several enemies fits the theme well - you ever see a movie with Zorro facing three guys at once and pushing them all back because they can't get a hit in on him?

The defender swordmage gets a close burst 1 that deals 1d6 + Int damage. A 1W close burst 1 is almost certainly going to be less damage than that (about 6.5-7.5 damage for the sword burst without feats, but 4.5 damage for a gambol strike with a longsword). I think marking the targets is a nice addition to that to balance the lower damage - it doesn't necessarily penalize the targets directly if they're all still attacking you, so it's not a huge advantage, and it does fit into that Zorro image of bothering several people at once.

Interesting, although I think it'd be better to apply a simple damage penalty to your target's next attack. It raises the question 'why can't he parry all the time?' 'Why does he have to hit someone to parry someone else?"

Okay, here's my overly complex justification of the balance here. Barbarians get an at-will ability that gives them Con THP on hit, right? Which ability is stronger, my parry or the barb THP ability?
* The barb gets THP that basically lower the damage of any next attack in the encounter. The parry only lasts against a hit before the end of the next turn. Barb++
* The barb can use his THP to lessen the damage of any attack. The duelist can only use the damage against weapon attacks, not against magic. Barb++
* The barb gets the THP if his attack hits. The duelist gets the parry even if his attack doesn't hit. Duelist++
* The barb's THP can only benefit himself. The parry can aide a weapon attack that strikes an ally instead if that occurs. Duelist++

So I say it's about even altogether.

I suggest losing the charge requirement in favor of allowing this power as part of a charge. Also, +1 to attack doesn't really scream grace when you already get a +2 to attack from charging.

The +1 bit is essentially a typo because I didn't read the actual wording of "charge" correctly. That will be taken out.

If I had an at-will power that said, "Move your speed, then make an attack," that would be a pretty strong power. After all, the rogue gets an at-will power that only allows you to move two extra squares. Saying that you get a bonus to OAs during that move would be even stronger. I think that restricting the power to charge attacks is fairly balanced. It essentially says that your character gets a bonus to OAs while charging and can use Dex instead of Str for the attack.

Too strong for an encounter, especially on a defender. A total possible 4W+2Dex mod damage and push Cha+1? Consider the off-beat duelist using a Maul: 8d6+dex+dex!.

I think you misread the power. The max damage is 2W+Dex if you hit with both attacks, not 1W+Dex + 2W+Dex.

Johnathan_Vagabond

May 21, 2010 9:09:46

I think then it might be best to give the class a slight rename. Swashbuckler comes to mind (swordsman, buccanear, daredevil). Because it's kind of a duelist that doesn't duel, which runs along the same vein as an brewer that doesn't brew or a charger that doesn't charge. It throws me (and likely others) off their game.

Although rolling to perform your defensive maneuver is exciting, the Duelist's maneuver is currently more limiting than any other defenders' maneuver. The fighter has CC and CS, although they both require rolls, they will both happen all the time. The paladin has DS, which doesn't require any rolls. The warden has an actual damage dealing attack, and a power that reaches enemies up to 5 squares away. The battlemind's Mindspike deals damage without a roll (although I don't quite like the battlemind). Either way, the Duelist gets a power that means he must be adjacent to the enemy and roll to have a chance to affect them. Unlike the other defenders you must 1) Be adjacent when the attack happens. 2) Not have used Lunge Step this round because 3) it uses the immediate action, of which you only get one per round and 4) Must roll to have a chance to succeed.

Lunge Step and Beat Strike are very weak defender mechanics right now.

If you want the 'free whenever shift', you need to make it a Free Action (Special): Once per round you may shift 1 square during another creatures turn. Keep in mind this does give you a virtual 'shift 1 square before and after the attack' power because you can Shift, Attack (end turn), Shift.

I recommend that, if you want to keep the roll for Beat Strike, you allow it to do some damage (and still drop the autmatic penalty). Then I'd suggest the following feat: 1) Improved Beat Strike: When you use Beat Strike, you may apply your Int or Cha mod as a penalty to the second attack.
The reasoning for this is that they're already taking a -2 to both rolls and must take the lower roll. Forcing them to take the full -2&-Stat mod would nearly guarentee that they never hit (which isn't very interesting either).

With Sharp Mind, I still think you need to find a different way to incentivize Dex/Int Duelists. Consider allowing them to use Int instead of Str when qualifying for feats or making mbas (or both).

You probably ought to still break Gambol Strike down to something like 2 or 3 creatures within a Close Burst 1. Realistically you won't be getting many 8 hit close burst 1s, but I still think it ought to be reduced.

The explanation for Sweeping Parry is interesting, but: Why does hitting target A allow you to parry target B? Also, in a D&D world, it makes just as much sense for the duelist to parry a weapon as it does for them to mess up someone's somatic spell component. Imagine the drama of the duelist slapping a wand with his sword, causing it to strike his allies shoulder instead of their heart. For understandabilities sake, it ought to apply a penalty to damage for the target's next attack (as an effect line if you please).

I don't think I suggested you make a power that said "move your speed and make an attack". I suggested that it grant you a bonus against OAs until the beginning of your next turn and if you happen to charge, you gain the bonus to OAs for the charge as wel.

I misread demanding swat because I don't think its very clearly worded. To clarify, I'd suggest the following:
Attack: Dex v AC
Hit: 1W+Dex mod damage and push Cha mod squares.
Effect: Make a secondary Dex v. AC attack against the target, before the push.
-Hit: 1W damage and the push becomes a Slide.

That very clearly says you get 2 rolls (because effects happen hit or miss), the max damage is 2W+Dex, and you end up with a big push. I switched it from Cha and Cha+1 to Cha Push and Cha Slide. Two reasons I suggest changing it. 1) Cha to Cha+1 isn't all that hot and 2) The Paladin's L1 Encounter "Divine Pursuit" does the same then (2W+Str mod damage, push Wis, shift adjacent) using only 1 attack roll and shifting to pursue. To make Demanding Swat comparable, I think letting the second attack turn your push into a slide is quite reasonable.

twobeef

May 29, 2010 23:56:05

Got around to adding ideas for paragon encounters/dailies.

Although rolling to perform your defensive maneuver is exciting, the Duelist's maneuver is currently more limiting than any other defenders' maneuver... The paladin has DS, which doesn't require any rolls.

Ehn, that's fair. I admit that I hadn't thought about the paladin mark ability in relationship to that. I'm gonna go ahead with an automatic reverse.

Lunge Step and Beat Strike are very weak defender mechanics right now.

I've trolling the forums a bit more lately and noticed a thread on the Battlemind where people were saying that being able to just shift when a mark shifts away isn't very strong because a target can just eat the OA and move out of range far enough to attack someone. The cries against it seem to warrant a bit more attention.

I'm been thinking in response to that that a defender built on mobility should be sticky, should be able to move just as much as the target does. I'm gonna try a bit different flavor on Lunge Step. Read what it says above now.

The explanation for Sweeping Parry is interesting, but: Why does hitting target A allow you to parry target B?

It doesn't. You don't have to hit the target to take advantage of the parry effect.

I don't think I suggested you make a power that said "move your speed and make an attack". I suggested that it grant you a bonus against OAs until the beginning of your next turn and if you happen to charge, you gain the bonus to OAs for the charge as wel.

I think that is getting confusing and a bit too strong.

I misread demanding swat because I don't think its very clearly worded. To clarify, I'd suggest the following:

I took the wording from a similar ability - I think it was a rogue ability in Martial Power somewhere, but it slips my mind. I can clean up the wording a bit if it's that bad.